I think the time has long since come for full order-making power, and one way you have full order-making power is you have to complement that with enforceable penalties. To make an order enforceable, that's what you need.
One of the problems is that people have said this is a quasi-judicial body and it's going to get formal and so on. I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding, as a frequent user also of provincial legislation, of the order-making powers and their offices, because they do mediation, they do public education. They do a variety of other functions. And there are some people in the office who are assigned to be, say, Ontario adjudicators, and they do that kind of thing and issue orders on behalf of the commission, or in Quebec or B.C. So let's not, first of all, find it one or the other.
One of the other problems is that if you're going to go beyond, as I'm suggesting, into the private sector--federal benefits go to companies, or safety issues are now with certain airlines--and you have to get these records, then an ombudsman model doesn't work. It's more just strictly towards the government, whereas you need an officer who can deal with a public-private mix.
In my case, I suggest three commissioners with those powers. I think you also need a commissioner with a clearer mandate, more grounds to appeal, more grounds of what his functions are. And even if it amounts to having joint SWAT teams, I see the Privacy Commissioner and the Auditor General teamed up, and so should the Information Commissioner on things like sponsorship scandals. So should the environment commissioner with the Information Commissioner on things like environmental assessments and so on. They have complementary roles.